Terrorism or "Modern" war?

[Apollo 0]

In addition "suicide bombers" have been a part of convential warfare longer than this terrorism than exists now.

Imperial Japan had fighter pilot's and torpedo pilot's that for honor and country were preparred to suicide kill an enemy. (kamikazi)

In the Vietnam war ,When the Vietcong assaulted enemy bases certain men were armed with a lot of bombs around their waist and in the heat of the battle they were suppose to run inside the defenses and destroy key points in it like a gun tower or command bunker.

But even then terrorism means something that inflicts terror on people ,"clean" conventional warfare can easily do the same.

[shinRaiden 0]

Local farmer's cows got poisoned, FBI called into investigate, rumors running wild, all in my town:

~20 cows poisoned in Enumclaw, WA

Theories:

1) Teamsters union members (mad over bad contract)

2) Earth Liberation Front (torched a couple developments and car dealerships recently)

3) High school prank (HS just let out, hick town)

4) Terrorist conspiricy fronted through mexican ranch-hand drifters (that's how Seattle gets its dope)

5) Space aliens

Since the investigation is over the scope of what the Sheriff can handle (technically) they called the FBI, which working with DHS, of course has to suspect terrorism from the start.

Mooo....

[shinRaiden 0]

Also consider Dresden and Tokyo. They got firebombed so bad that at times they had to call off the raids, as the thermals were making the bombers uncontrollable.

And of course, the biggie - A-bombs. For all the talk of 'tactical' nukes and applications against hardened targets, the PR mongering has created a public perception that nuke's are 'uncivil' while torching tokyo is 'civil'.

In reading a biography of Emperor Showa (Hirohito), the comment was made that he was out of the picture administratively during the war, the operations of the governement having been turned over by his grandfather Meiji.

Only when the junta came to him with their tails between their legs because none could admit defeat and live (pansies), that he was in a position to declare what the others wanted but could not say.

[Chill 0]

The only terrorist i see is the USA.

[shinRaiden 0]

This is a discussion of is 'terrorism' really 'terrorism', not who is a 'terrorist'. That debate is amply covered elsewhere.

[shinRaiden 0]

I think that most people are comfortable with the classical notion of wars over boundries and other such political issues.

For example, the US Revolutionary War was fought over economic and political policy regarding the British management of the colonies at that time. We entered WW2 on the premise that US and Allied property was at risk or had been illegally occupied.

In the conclusion of WW2, the Allies embarked on significant programs of reigme change, 'civilizing', and cultural 'reform' in Germany and Japan. That was not viewed as 'terror', because of the racist supierority involved, ie you pet dog does not have equivelient human rights.

[Silent Pro 0]

The only terrorist i see is the USA.

Flame bait anyone? Would anyone like to take a freebie at a troll? It's a perfect opportunity, mighty tempting i must admit.

So who are you to be calling Americans terrorists? What glorious pompous name would you refer to yourself with?

[Tim Pink 0]

If anything, terrorism is a weapon in modern warfare.

Think about it, when special forces receive training it is in modern tactics, use of modern weapons and such, terrorists try to think up ways to negate these advantages and modernise there approach, what use is a special forces soldier if there is no hostage situation, one bomb can do it all.

Its terror tactics being "upgraded" to fit in with modern warfare.

It seems rare that terrorists take hostages anymore, because suicide bombers do more dammage and render hostage rescue and special forces useless.

well thats my 2c

Tim

[Apollo 0]

However ,while the practical effects of terrorism (or muslim terrorism specificly) are well known ,none of it has yet resulted in positive political actions even for the terrorist organizations themselfs.Palestinian suicide bombers hurt the Palestinian's more politicly than the Israeli effectivly ,And while Al-Quida can keep the pressure high it suffer's losses to and it's political goals as far as known are far from completion.

It looks like the West will never back down for terrorism ,it was a pitty to see that S Korean being beheaded yesterday as he had begged for S Korea to not send additional forces ,but it looks like the West has found itself an weapon that it wants to anilihate.

And i can understand that.The West and America in special can easily maintain it power supperiority in the Middle East on the conventional level ,the got all the tech and material so the American's have almost nothing to fear from conventional warfare ,deffinatly not in the Med East.But the terrorist organizations like Al-Quaida are clearly out on destabilizing the U.S it's position in the Middle east and this with a form of warfare that inflicts way more casualties on US troops than conventional warfare.

America has strategic partners in the Med east like Saudi Arabia who supply oil to the west ,an oil supply that must be secured.Al-Quaida wants to fight the U.S as it has an to important powerfull position in the middle east and they want to chase the u.S out that Middle East.

And Not the west no'r the terrorists will give in ,the West knows all to well the importance of West security over oil in Saudi arabia and Iraq and won't give up that ,and the terorists are preppared to die for they cause so they sure will never give up.

So the only thing that can result from this is: continues escalation of the conflict between "west" and terrorists. ,just like we actually witnessed up to now ,In Iraq or in Israel.

Noone is going to give up ,and the violence will only start more violence as for evvery terrorist the West kill's it create's 2 new ones.

[Skewballzz 0]

The only terrorist i see is the USA.

Flame bait anyone? Would anyone like to take a freebie at a troll? It's a perfect opportunity, mighty tempting i must admit.

So who are you to be calling Americans terrorists? What glorious pompous name would you refer to yourself with?

i view myself as a patriotic american, but in doing so I refuse to be ignorant of the facts. We kill more civilians in wartime than "terrorists" do. So we take out some T-55's in the process, but does that justify the 12 civilians we took out along with it?

I understand that war is the most terrible thing man can do and people WILL die, but the US in general has a superiority issue. The populous think that we can romp around the world removing dictators who we dont agree with and we will only suffer few to little casualties. Too bad the rest of the world doesnt think that way.

There are conciquences for every action, and we must be accountable for them.

So overall, if we have the nerve to labal the "terrorists" terrorists, then what are we? Freedom fighters?? Oh yeah, were an OFFICIAL country, so if we go through the process of declaring war, we can kill 1,000's and it will be justified...

[shinRaiden 0]

In the 1700's, the british army and all the other european armies for that matter, marched in close ranks on open fields with shiny uniforms.

We yanks snuck through the bushes, dressed in 'irregular' farm grubs and buckskins, and made ambushes. To the british, that type of guerilla tactics could well have been considered terrorism, while in comparison the military enforcement of royal edicts was viewed as 'terrorism'.

But contrast that with the Indians. There were Indians fighting for and among themselves, some for us, some for the British, some for the French, and some for the Spanish. They were regarded as savages by those who fought against them, but not nearly so by those who fought with them.

[Silent Pro 0]

i view myself as a patriotic american, but in doing so I refuse to be ignorant of the facts.  We kill more civilians in wartime than "terrorists" do.  So we take out some T-55's in the process, but does that justify the 12 civilians we took out along with it?

I understand that war is the most terrible thing man can do and people WILL die, but the US in general has a superiority issue.  The populous think that we can romp around the world removing dictators who we dont agree with and we will only suffer few to little casualties.  Too bad the rest of the world doesnt think that way.  

There are conciquences for every action, and we must be accountable for them.

So overall, if we have the nerve to labal the "terrorists" terrorists, then what are we?  Freedom fighters??  Oh yeah, were an OFFICIAL country, so if we go through the process of declaring war, we can kill 1,000's and it will be justified...

I never stated that our nation has the purity of a saint, no nation has that. No people on this earth have that. I agree that our country should be accountable for it's mistakes and intentional injustices. I myself am a proud American who might call himself a patriot in the name of the ideals by which this country was originally established, a Jeffersonian if you will.

I am not proud of the fact that after 9/11 hundreds if not thousands of Arab Americans were detained, questioned and literally disappeared from society for a period of about three weeks. The last time in history i heard of that happening was in latin america: Brazil, Argentina and Chile under fascist rule. That says something about what i feel this government is bordering close to. In no way do I support the war by ignoring our shortcomings and glorifying our successes. Capturing Saddam was inconsequential, it was fluff...nice to know he's behind bars but, what did it matter? We were still occupying a country and our soldiers are still left there without a "clear" objective and strategy.

The terrorists may view us as terrorists as we bomb them and salvo them with artillery fire and gunship fire. But, i do not in my right mind ever label all peoples of islam as terrorists because a select few are jihadists who feel it is necessary to behead and suicide bomb westerners.

My point was directed at Chill, he was not stating a fact. He didnt even explain himself. I was challenging him to be more substantial in his accusations, if he feels i am a terrorist...i want to know why he feels like he is superior to me. Why i have to be villified?

Americas current administration suffers from a superiority complex, not it's people. This administration has coined terms such as "unilateral pre-emption", similar to cold war era catch phrases created by Presidents Reagan and Bush. The path is the same no matter how much the administration denies it, they are still using a coldwar era doctrine to fight a 21st century war in which there are flashpoints all over the globe and not enough americans to be fighting them.

This is not warfare, nor is it terrorism. They want our annhialation, right now they are simply murdering us like criminals. They want a war with the USA only they want it in reality, not psychologically. They want the war on our land, they want our streets to be ravaged by war as theirs have been for years. Pain is what they want for us, they want us to suffer the same pain if not more. They dream of cleansing this world of our civilization, and others like it. They dream of the day that islam will be the religion and political organization of all people in the world.

Here's some light reading to support these allegations.

Islamic Extremist Training Manual

Links to Islamic Extremist Websites